There is a 7 million year gap between the oldest tetrapod and the second
oldest tetrapod. (Nature 368 April 7, 1994, p. 507
I mentioned the Tarsiers. Until 1994, the oldest known Tarsier was from the
MIocene. In that year a new fossil was found in rocks 30 million years
older. Prior to 1994 you would have told me that I could not advocate the
existence of the Tarsiers prior to the Miocene. You would have been proven
wrong. Nature, April 14, 1994, p. 586.
Up until 1994 the oldest turtle from Africa was from the Cretaceous
period. You would have said that I was asking too much to believe that
turtles lived in Africa prior to this time. But in that year, a turtle
fossil was found in rocks 60 million years older. For 60 million years there
is no evidence of turtles in Africa. Nature May 5, 1994, p. 55
In 1960 the oldest known tools were from Olduvai and were dated at 2 million
years ago. Then in the 70's stone tools were found in Kenya at East Lake
Turkana which were 850,000 years older. You would have said that it was
impossible for tools to exist earlier than the 2 million years.
Until today, I thought the earliest Frog was from the Toarcian of the
Jurassic Period around 172 million years ago. Today I read Nature, Sept 7,
1995, p. 51, that a new frog was discovered from the Pliensbachian of the
Jurassic which was around 175 million years ago. Thus yesterday, you would
have said that it was ludicrous to believe in a 3 million year gap for the
frogs, but today you would have to say it is ludicrous to believe that frogs
lived prior to 175 million years ago.
I have provided this documentation several times. Can we please move on to
other issues?
Concerning the fossil evidence of humans 2 million years ago.
Jim writes:
>>No one in the scientific community thinks modern man existed 5.5 million
years ago. No one. No one believes there was a thriving culture and
sophisticated tool use and language. Yet this is being "asked for" in order
for the theory to work. This is a HUGE request, one that is not supported by
any data or any scientist. <<
Jim, you can not find anywhere that I have said that MODERN man existed 2
million years ago. I said that modern man is the only being on earth today
with Broca's area and it is used for speech. I then pointed out that the
earliest example of a fossil with Broca's region impressed on the skull is
homo habilis from 2 million years ago. Does that sound like MODERN man to
you? It certainly does not sound that way to me. I believe that H. habilis,
having Broca's region, with the only know use being control of speech,
implies that H. habilis spoke. Since speech somehow appears to be related to
humanity, I suggest that H. habilis was human, not modern human but human
nonetheless. I believe that he too was made in the image of God. Remember,
God judges the inner man, man judges the outer appearances.
So, once and for all, I have never suggested that MODERN man existed 2
million years ago. You must have been reading someone else.
Jim wrote;
>>Also, what is the point of arguing for "Broca's region" in hominids 2
million years ago? Under your theory, modern man was already in existence!
You seem at cross purposes with yourself, arguing on two different fronts<<
I am not, never have, never will suggest that Modern man existed back then. I
really don't know where you are pulling this idea from. It is not from
anything I have written.
You wrote:
>> Are you saying
the Noahic line proceeded to re-populate the Earth in this 3.5 million year
dark age, yet at the same time evolution was forming the basis for what would
develop into modern man? How can this be?<<
I am saying that Noah's body morphology may have been different from ours.
period.
Jim wrote:
>>I'm not sure what the point of the list of "to do's" was, but I do recall
Noah being a pretty old fella, and trust he acquired quite a bit of knowledge
along the way.<<
I told you what the list of questions was for. Please re-read my post. It
really wasn't that convoluted. The list was to point out that you and seven
of your friends could not re-create our modern society (or even one with the
technology of 3000 B. C.) from the knowledge in your head. Now if you
suggest that God gave Noah and his descendents the technology, then I can't
argue with you. God may have done it. But I don't see that in my Bible.
Jim, you have been arguing that human kind arose 40-50,000 years ago and
"exploded onto the scene. I presume that you exclude all beings prior to
that time as being human, in the Biblical sense of human. So why did
non-humans, bury their dead, make art, control the use of fire, build walls
and huts, etc. Some of the neanderthals had brain sizes much larger than the
average modern human and yet your view would exclude them from humanity. The
largest brained Neanderthal had a cranial capacity of 1740 milliliters (see
Ian Tattersall, The fossil Trail, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 181.) We
certainly wouldn't want to consider beings like these, who buried their dead
children, in any way shape or form human. They were different from us so
they couldn't be human. Besides they lived too long ago to be human.
glenn